Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 17:32 +0100, Michal Hrusecky wrote:
Michael Schroeder - 16:53 28.02.14 wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 04:44:29PM +0100, Michal Hrusecky wrote:
I just started helping review team with reviews and I'm running into people who instead of creating patches and documenting them just update and change tarball (without bumping the version) effectivelly hiding patches inside.
It is obviously wrong, [...]
Is it? How is updating a patch different?
Well, we have so many policies about tracking patches... If we allow people to simply change the content of the tarball (without version change) instead of doing real patch, it's pointless to track patches as we have no idea whether the tarball is upstream one or how many bundled patches it contains.
I fully agree with Michal here. It's about consistency and reproducibility. If a tarball 'changes' but versions stay, it's close to impossible to reproduce.
OBS always shows the tarball diff... It's been common practice for some packages in the past where the sources in obs were the canonical upstream. Meanwhile hopefully all such packages are hosted in some git repo. There are still scripts that produce tarballs with fixed names for legacy reasons. It sometimes just takes a few minutes of work to convert. Still someone has to do the work, test it, communicate it to the contributors, see if it also works with branches etc, etc. Also, as Michal said there are plans to have OBS support scms directly without the need to upload tarballs. So maybe it's not the right time to try changing the policy yet. I don't know the timeline for that feature but once it's there the problem of unversioned tarballs simply becomes obsolete. cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org